Retrieve and manage short video creation requests with filtering, pagination, and sorting options for tracking progress.
List all short creation requests with optional status filtering, pagination, and sorting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Items per page (1-100) | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| sortBy | No | Sort field | createdAt |
| sortOrder | No | Sort direction | desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose potential side effects, response shapes, or rate limits. The word 'List' implies safety, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond what the name already conveys.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the core action ('List all short creation requests') and then listing the optional features. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response looks like or note limitations, but it does not. It covers the basic functionality and parameters adequately, but an agent may not know the return format or potential edge cases (e.g., empty results). This is a clear gap, making it merely viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with clear types, defaults, and descriptions. The description merely summarizes the parameters (status filtering, pagination, sorting) without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('short creation requests'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_music or list_templates. It also mentions optional status filtering, pagination, and sorting, giving a precise scope of functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it is the tool for listing short creation requests with optional filters and sorting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., get_status for a single request status) or provide exclusions, so guidance is only inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.